Should a person describe what they look like during a virtual meeting or webinar? Response # of respondents % of respondents Yes 363 31.8% No 779 68.2% The majority (68.2%) of respondents do not prefer descriptions of appearances in online meetings.

Thinking Styles are the archetypes that you would base characters on, like characters in TV episodes. (Try writing your scenarios like TV episodes, with constant characters.) Characters think, react, and made decisions based on their thinking style archetype. BUT they also switch thinking styles depending on context. For example, if you take a flight as a single traveler versus bringing a young child along–you’ll probably change your thinking style for that flight, including getting to the gate, boarding, and deplaning.

I sometimes make a further suggestion to client teams who have years of experience working directly (via research) with the diversity of the people their organization supports. I suggest they abandon “persona” (a representation of a person) and replace it with “behavioral audience segment” (a representation of a group). (Note: I have begun calling these “thinking styles” to emphasize that a person can change to a different group based on context or experience.)This change allows those qualified teams to get away from names and photos. I don’t suggest this for everyone. Note: “Behavioral audience segment” is the name I use, although there may be a better one. In its defense, Susan Weinschenk uses “behavioral science” to mean what I am trying to represent. And “audience segment” is a common way to express a group an organization is focused on.

Why are your organization’s personas so hard to use? It might be because they are marketing personas, based on the way customers buy what you produce—segments of the market divided up by the way each group tends to make a purchase decision. Maybe what you’re designing for isn’t the purchase process. A problem many organizations run into is relying on only one set of personas. Personas can be derived from any sort of audience segment. There are many ways your organization might have divided the people it supports into segments. There are marketing or buying segments, demographic segments, preference segments, and behavioral segments, to name but a few. Within each of these types of segments, your organization might take different perspectives, such as first-time buyer and return buyer.

But she did explain how researching and designing for the majority or “average user” actually end up ignoring, othering, and harming the people our designs are meant to serve. Indi shared how she finds patterns in people’s behaviors, thoughts, and needs—and how she uses that data to create thinking styles that inform more inclusive design decisions. Indi talked about… Why researchers should look for patterns, not anecdotes, to understand real user needs. What are thinking styles and how to uncover and use them. Why your “average” user often doesn’t exist in the real world, and how we can do better.

The fact of the matter is that each market/user group has its own particular set of situational and psychological differences that determine which behaviors will be adopted and which will never even be attempted. The job of every product team, whether they know it or not, is to make it as easy and delightful as possible for their target market/user group to perform a behavior that they find doable, useful, compelling, and enjoyable that also leads to an important business outcome for the company. If any of these things are missing, there is no Behavior Market Fit and the project and any associated products will be a failure.

The JTBD Canvas 2.0 is a tool to help you scope out your JTBD landscape prior to conducting field research. It frames your field of inquiry and scopes of your innovation effort. Jobs to be done

Personas are a widely used tool to keep real users in mind, while avoiding stereotypical thinking in the design process. Yet, creating personas can be challenging. Starting from Cooper's approach for constructing personas, this paper details how behavioral theory can contribute substantially to the development of personas. We describe a case study in which Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is used to develop five distinctive personas for the design of a digital coach for sustainable weight loss. We show how behavioral theories such as SDT can help to understand what genuinely drives and motivates users to sustainably change their behavior. In our study, we used SDT to prepare and analyze interviews with envisioned users of the coach and to create complex, yet engaging and highly realistic personas that make users' basic psychological needs explicit. The paper ends with a critical reflection on the use of behavioral theories to create personas, discussing both challenges and strengths.

A five-step framework In summary, the five steps that we will walk you through are: Ask rich questions, not dumb questions Write a codebook Code your data Map your data Form your personas

MATE tool

Life experiences are significant events or transitions that often require interactions and touchpoints with multiple Federal agencies and even levels of government. Too often, people have to navigate a tangled web of government websites, offices, and phone numbers to access the services they depend on. Government needs to better meet people where they are and be responsive to how they navigate these moments. The “life experience” organizing framework requires a new model of the Federal delivery system working together—within agencies, across agencies, even across levels of government — driven by customer (“human-centered design”) research, rather than within bureaucratic silos and pre-conceived solutions, to solve problems. Below are the Life Experiences that have been designated for collective government-wide improvement efforts.

To get the brain to accept a story which explains why a consumer bought a product, it needs information presented in a particular way. The best way to deliver this information is to explain a customer’s anxieties, motivations, purchase-progress events, and purchase-progress situations. When combined, they form what I call Characters.

Accessibility on Social Media So you want to be more inclusive online? Excellent! Whether you're looking to improve your personal social media or accounts that you manage professionally, there are a lot of basic best practices you can implement to make your online presence more accessible. Ultimately, this makes a big impact on the experience that users with vision and/or hearing disabilities have on social media. Below you will find tips, tricks, and information on digital accessibility. These resources are by no means exhaustive, but are a good starting place for creating accessible and more inclusive social media content. I've also put together a quick and handy checklist to help you double-check the content you create for common accessibility pitfalls.

Nudges have been critiqued for being too blunt of a tool. For instance, a retirement savings default may be helpful for a group of employees on average, but subgroups, say under-savers or over-savers, might be helped or harmed by this one-size-fits-all approach. As such, there have been calls to develop a more personalized approach to nudging (see here in our collection: “Imagining the Next Decade of Behavioral Science”). This paper outlines two dimensions that behavioral scientists could consider when designing personalized nudges: choice personalization and delivery personalization. Think of choice personalization as “personalization within nudges”—the method of nudge has been set (say, a default) but is tailored to specific individuals (different default leves of retirement contributions, for those over-savers and under-savers). Think of delivery personalization as “personalization as across nudges”—understanding the most effective method to nudge a certain individual. Personalizing nudges does come with data privacy and legal concerns, but these can be overcome, the paper argues.

includes graphic compiling meanings of colors across cultures

At BehaviourWorks, we often prioritise behaviours using the Impact-Likelihood Matrix (figure below). In this approach, behaviours are prioritised by mapping them based on: The impact they have on the problem they are intended to address. The likelihood of the target audience adopting the behaviour.

If we want everyone to participate in public life, we must design and build an inclusive public realm that is accessible to all. Public life can’t just be available to the abled, young, or healthy. Everyone navigates the built environment differently, with abilities changing across a person's lifespan. The sizeable global population of people with physical, auditory, or visual disabilities, autism or neurodevelopmental and/or intellectual disabilities, or neuro-cognitive disorders will face greater challenges if we don’t begin to more widely apply universal design principles.

While co-design with users has evolved as a promising approach to service innovation, it remains unclear how it can be used in public service contexts. This article addresses this knowledge gap by applying a co-design framework during the ideation stage of six public service design projects. The findings provide insights into (a) recruiting and sensitizing suitable service users, (b) conditions enabling users to co-design ideas, and (c) requirements for implementation of user-driven ideas. The article contributes an approach that shifts public service design away from an expert-driven process towards enabling users as active and equal idea contributors.

NEW URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3324907

Amy Jo Kim Superfan funnel: 1) Potential customers - who are they? what are their unmet needs? 2) Super fans 3) Job stories - design-ready insights to shape product design - lifestyle and insights re: fans Superfan screener - 3 closed ended multiple choice Q's relevant to topic, plus 3 open ended about what they're doing now, what they want Recruitment via Craigslist, taskrabbit, userinterviews.com, social media ads, friends/family, et al

Small, medium or large — what sample size of users fits your study is a composite question. The magic number of 5 users may work magic in some studies while in some it may not. It depends on the constraints put on by project requirements, assumptions about problem discoverability and implications to the design process. Assess these factors to determine the number of users for your study: What’s the nature and scope of research — is it exploratory or validatory? Who and what kind of users are you planning to study? What’s the budget and time to finish the study? Does your research involve presenting statistically significant numbers or inferring behavioural estimates for the problem statement?